Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Since his post-war words have no bearing on his position during the war, it is proper that they be dismissed when it comes to the question of his position during the war.

The lack of any records of him expressing opposition is evidence that he didn't express opposition.

Whatever his personal views were, he did not speak out against using the A-bombs when they were actually being dropped.

I have the fact that he never once spoke out against using the bombs when they were being dropped.

Unless "I'm an expert in explosives and I assure you those contraptions will never work" counts.

The Japanese brought it on themselves, or at least their leaders did--and the stupid sons of bitches would not surrender

That is an insane statement.

He came right out and expressed his thoughts on the matter.

He also indicated that he has always felt that wars are not won by destroying women and children, and that there was no need to incinerate cities full of people.

You are exhibiting cognitive dissonance here.

Despite his plain, unambiguous language and meaning, you simply refuse to acknowledge that his post-war statements mean exactly what they say!

Also, I will assume that you could find nothing in the way of him stating that he approved of incinerating cities full of people. I would suggest that the reason you can't find it is because it doesn't exist.

More insanity.

That's like me telling you that the lack of any records of him expressing approval before the bombings is evidence that he didn't express approval before the bombings.

See how your thinking can be turned against you.

However, in my case, there is evidence that he did not approve of the bombings.

Your rebuttal to that evidence is to insist that he held a completely opposite view just before the bombing.

But as you have been showing, you can find nothing to substantiate that illogical view.

Nor did he speak up to approve the use of the bombs as they were being dropped.

So we have only what he actually said about it--which I've put before you several times now--to determine which side of the fence he falls on.

Think about it. Your position is that, before the bombs were dropped, he actually felt that wars are won by destroying women and children, but that after the bombs were dropped, he had a change of heart and decided that he was wrong, and that destroying women and children is the way to win wars.

Does that sound sane to you?

But you don't have anything to show that he spoke up to approve the destruction of women and children.

No, it doesn't. His opinion concerning the reliability of the bomb has no bearing on the question of whether or not he opposed its use in Japan.

That's a good argument. There's a lot of bad people in Japan, so why don't we be just like them and radiate innocent populations. Show 'em that we can be just as nasty. Make the world a better place. I never looked at it that way.

Yeah, those civilians were just asking for it, weren't they?

Lemay was first against using the A bomb, not because of a moral dilemma. He felt that he could get the job done with more fire bombing which he felt was more of a terror weapon and could make the Japanese population demand surrender.

When it all came to the end, we didnt demand all the points we first detailed as a part of unconditional surrender anyway.

Apparently he was consulted shortly after we acquired Tinian as a field.

However, his "on the record tlk with reporters" didnt occur till September . He felt that the war would have been completed by September even without the A bomb and without the Russians entering the war.

That does not change the reality that he did not express any opposition to using the A-bombs when they were actually being used.

There are no records of him saying anything like that when the A-bombs were being dropped.

That does not change the reality that he did not express any opposition to using the A-bombs when they were actually being used

Contrast that with Ike's post-war statements, which claim that he did speak out against using the A-bombs, to a single person, who then called him an idiot.

However, I concur that Leahy never expressed such approval.

The ONLY thing he had to say about the A-bombs during the war was "I'm an expert in explosives and I assure you those contraptions will never work." That's not an exact quote by the way. But it is very close to what he said. I just summarized the gist of his comment from memory.

Glennn wrote:
Nor did he speak up to approve the use of the bombs as they were being dropped.

I'm not sure why it matters, but true.

That article really did appear in the Chicago Tribune. However, every single thing claimed in the article is untrue.

Hiroshima: A Controversy That Refuses to Die

But these warriors' qualms were swept away in what Professor Bernstein called a "redefinition of morality that made Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible and ushered in the Atomic Age in such a frightening way."

"That redefinition of morality was a product of World War II," Professor Bernstein writes, "which included such barbarities as Germany's systematic murder of six million Jews and Japan's rape of Nanking. "While the worst atrocities were perpetrated by the Axis, all the major nation-states sliced away at the moral code -- often to the applause of their leaders and citizens alike. By 1945 there were few moral restraints left in what had become virtually a total war."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/31/us/hiroshima-a-controversy-that-refuses-to-die.html?pagewanted=all

well Lemay did have a vested interest in firebombing

I know, I know. When someone says that destroying innocent people is not the way to win wars, it usually means that they actually believe that it is the way to win wars.

There are no records of his approval of dropping them either.

So we have only his actual recorded statements to go by.

And we know what that statement is.

You are trying to convince everyone that, rather than accept his clearly worded statements for what they indicate, it would be better to assume that he actually held a completely opposite view prior to that.

Yeah but that statement doesn't change the reality that he did not express any approval for using the atomic bombs when they were actually being used.

The only thing we have to go on is what he did say afterwards.

And yet, according to statements from high-ranking military personnel at the time, it turned out that the bombs weren't necessary, and that Japan was already defeated. So who was the really the idiot?

Well, if I apply the kind of reasoning you have been using, I can say that since he never expressed approval, then he was obviously opposed to the idea. But that would be silly of me.

It matters because, as evidence that he approved of dropping the bombs, you cite the absence of his opposition to the idea.

Therefore, I'm citing the absence of his approval for the idea to prove that he opposed the idea.

Of course, there is the issue of what he actually said about it, which, by the way, bolsters my assessment.

Well of course. After all, they were there and you weren't. So . . .

"That redefinition of morality was a product of World War II," Professor Bernstein writes, "which included such barbarities as Germany's systematic murder of six million Jews and Japan's rape of Nanking. "While the worst atrocities were perpetrated by the Axis, all the major nation-states sliced away at the moral code -- often to the applause of their leaders and citizens alike. By 1945 there were few moral restraints left in what had become virtually a total war."